Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. Challenge is made to an order of the second respondent made in C.M.P.No.1/P.B.M.S.E.C.Act/J3/2008, dated10.01.2008, whereby one Saravanan, the husband of the petitioner, was termed as Black Marketer and detained under the Provisions of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act 1980. 2. The affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused. The court heard the learned counsel on either side. The order under challenge is also perused. 3.The Sponsoring Authority made recommendations that a case came to be registered by Salem Civil Supply CID in Crime No.788 of 2006, alleging that on 112. 2006 at about 17.00 hours, one Chokkalingam was found indulging in illicit transporting of 30 bags of P.D.S. rice, each containing 50 Kgs. in a TATA Mini Lorry bearing registration No.TN-30-M-1872 of one Saravanan, the detenu herein; that he was arrested; that the rice and the lorry were seized; that a case came to be registered against him, but the detenu herein managed to escape; that the seized rice was handed over to TNCSC Godown, Salem and the enquiry by the Police would reveal that the said Saravanan was the owner of the said lorry and used it to transport P.D.S. rice illicitly on hire basis for higher charges; that the said Saravanan obtained anticipatory bail in this court; that the District Revenue Officer by proceedings levied a fine of Rs.3000/- to the said Saravanan for having transported the P.D.S. rice illcitly and that the detenu also paid the fine amount. Equally, on 08.01.2008 at about 11.00 hours, when the District Supply Officer, Salem, the Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies C.I.D. along with the police party were under supervision, the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-30-M-4734 came from Salem towards Dharmapuri and it was intercepted. It was found to have contained 40 bags of P.D.S. rice containing each 50 Kgs. One person, who was in the lorry, attempted to escape, but the police was able to catch him. On enquiry, it was found that he was Saravanan, who was involved in the other case. The police has arrested him and seized the vehicle and the rice. The seized rice was sent for analysis and it was found to be the P.D.S. rice. The detenu was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Omalur and he was remanded till 22.01.2008 and lodged in the Central Prison, Salem. 4. The police has arrested him and seized the vehicle and the rice. The seized rice was sent for analysis and it was found to be the P.D.S. rice. The detenu was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Omalur and he was remanded till 22.01.2008 and lodged in the Central Prison, Salem. 4. On the basis of the recommendations made, the Detaining Authority, after looking into the materials available, was of the opinion that he was indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community and under these circumstances, he should be termed as Black Marketer and in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities in future, he should be detained under the Act. Since there arose a necessity to detain him under the Central Act 7 of 1980, an order came to be passed, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 5. Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel inter-alia raised two points. Firstly, the husband of the petitioner, namely Saravanan, was arrested on 08.01.2008; that he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Omalur and was remanded till 21. 2008; that the Sponsoring Authority placed the materials before the Detaining Authority on 09.01.2008; that the order of detention came to be passed on 10.01.2008; that in the instant case, when the order was passed, not even one bail application was filed, but the Detaining Authority has pointed out that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in future and thus, even without any material whatsoever, the Detaining Authority has passed the order and hence, the order has got to be set aside. 6. Added further the learned counsel that in the instant case, after the order was passed by the Detaining Authority on 10.01.2008, immediately within a week, it must be placed for approval before the Central Government and also the law would mandate that an order has got to be passed by the Central Government within a reasonable time and it should be served on the detenu, but neither order has been passed nor it was served on the detenu and under these circumstances, the mandatory provisions have not been complied with and on this ground also, the order of detention has got to be set aside. 7. 7. Contrary to the above, the learned counsel for the State would submit that so far as the first ground is concerned, it was of no avail. The learned counsel, relying on the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2006 (3) SCC (Cri) 17 (IBRAHIM NAZEER VS. STATE OF T.N. AND ANOTHER), would contend that in such cases orders granting bail were passed by various Courts and also subjective satisfaction of detaining authority about likelihood of detenu being released on bail should not be questioned. Under these circumstances, the detaining authority was perfectly correct in recording that there was likelihood of detenu coming out on bail and hence it cannot be a ground to set aside the order. 8.The learned counsel for the Central Government would submit that in the instant case, the order came to be passed on 10.01.2008 and it was actually approved on 18.01.2008 and the report was sent to the Central Government for confirmation and an order of Central Government was passed on 13.05.2008 and it was sent to the Prison Authorities on 14.05.2008 and it was also served on the detenu immediately thereafter and hence there is no question of failure on the part of the Central Government in considering the State Governments report and therefore, the second ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner has got to be rejected. 9. The Court has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. The court is of the considered opinion that both the grounds are available to the petitioner. In the instant case, concededly, the detenu was arrested on 08.01.2008 and he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate Omalur on 08.01.2008 and he was remanded till 22.01.2008. The Sponsoring Authority placed the materials before the Detaining Authority on 09.01.2008. It is not the case of the Sponsoring Authority that any bail application has been filed. It is pertinent to point out that actually, no bail application has been pending. It could be seen from the order that there was a mere statement that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. It is not the case of the Sponsoring Authority that any bail application has been filed. It is pertinent to point out that actually, no bail application has been pending. It could be seen from the order that there was a mere statement that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. It remains to be stated that no material was available in that regard before the Detaining Authority and further, it is pertinent to point out that when no bail application was filed or pending, no material could have been made available to the Detaining Authority to record a finding that there was a possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. Under these circumstances, the court is of the considered opinion that the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents that subjective satisfaction was necessary and there was possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by making an application in future, cannot be applied to the present facts of the case for the simple reason that the detenu was arrested on 08.01.2008 and the Sponsoring Authority made recommendations on 09.01.2008 and the order under challenge was passed on 10.01.2008 and thus, no other materials are available, except the recommendations made by the Sponsoring Authority. In a given case, no bail petition has been filed and that when the detenu was arrested on 08.01.2008, the very next day the recommendation was made and an order came to be passed on 10.01.2008 even without any interval whatsoever and hence no question of the detenu coming out on bail would arise and under these circumstances, that contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has got to be accepted. 10. Insofar as the second contention, in the opinion of the court, it is a strong one. Admittedly, the order under challenge came to be passed on 10.01.2008 and it was also approved by the State on 18.01.2008 and the report was also submitted within one week to the Central Government, but the Central Government has passed the order only on 13.05.2008 and therefore, unreasonable delay is noticed. Secondly, mere passing of the order by the Central Government on the order of the State Government would not by itself be sufficient, but there must be material to show that it was served upon the detenu. Secondly, mere passing of the order by the Central Government on the order of the State Government would not by itself be sufficient, but there must be material to show that it was served upon the detenu. In the instant case, what is stated before the court was that it was sent to the Superintendent of Prison concerned, but there is no material available to show that it was served upon the detenu. Hence mere passing of the order would not by itself be sufficient, but it must be served on the detenu. The delay on the part of the Central Government in passing the order in the opinion of the court is unreasonable. Further in the absence of any proof of serving the same on the detenu, in the opinion of the Court, would be sufficient to quash the order of detention. 11. Accordingly, the order of detention is set aside. The Habeas Corpus petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.